I am actually happy about this because they are using the words illegal gun violence. The main stream media could care less about these crimes. The only thing making the main stream news is “legal” gun usage in crimes because that’s what you should be worried about when driving through any city in America. 550+ killed by “illegal” gun violence mainly stemming from gangs in 2012 in Chicago alone yet the news is either afraid to report on it due to the mainly black on black crime stigma’s highlighted. Much more interested and messing with the NRA and people owning legal guns. I personally do not see the need to own machine guns but I highly doubt the # of people killed by them when bought legally than the 550+ in chicago alone. I dare anyone to argue this point. There’s nothing to be gained politically by fighting gangs for this liberal political team.

What would “change” or a “plan” really do? The people who do these types of thing are criminals, which means they don’t care about the law and will possess a gun whether it’s legal or not to do so. All stronger gun control or making guns illegal will do is take them out of the good guys’ hands and keep them in the bad guys’ hands.

The only person who can stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.

Ok – so we’re listening to a self involved antagonist, someone who can barely speak english (who is not named chris johnson), a guy who should know better than to weigh in on the topic, a druggie, and a guy who has been labeled as self serving by his TEAMMATES…ok so give them cabinet positions because they all fit the profile! That’s legitimate information in a slow news period – got it.

500,000 Gus stolen a year all by criminals. Responsible gun ownership means storing in a safe place so as to not get in the hands of a criminal. Gun owners should be responsible for their gun that’s where the real problem is.

People are the problem, not the guns. Vehicles kill thousands more than guns do so are we supposed to get behind a proposed ban of automobiles too? You cannot stop the dedicated lunatics who are willing to die. Make all gun crimes federal and lock up the violent idiots who use weapons in their crimes. Leave the law abiding gun owners alone.

edenprairieballer says:
Feb 8, 2013 6:10 PM
Gun ownership is not a privilege it is a right. Don’t forget that!

====================================

How do you figure that? Go and commit a violent crime and then a couple of years down the road, try to purchase a firearm. You can yell about your “rights” all you want but you still won’t be walking out of that store with a firearm.

nobody I know that owns a gun legally has ever said to me hey let’s take our guns and go around shooting up the town tonight. Chicago has one of the toughest gun laws in the country yet leads the nation in gun violence,how are more laws going to help? the people that are responsible for these killings and shootings could care less what they have to say.

That video should be directed to Young African-American men who continue to kill themselves, their elders, and innocent robbery victims. i surely don’t need those ex-jocks to telling me About gun violence. Both my kids including my son who is in law school and my daughter a nursing student have concealed weapon permits and carry firearms where ever they can do so legally.. When will the media ever get it straight, law-abiding citizens are not the problem.

Yeh these gun control laws are working so well in Chicago that the police are actually blowing off some legit 911 calls cause of all the gun violence in the city but maybe this ad from all these former NFL players who include some who couldn’t pass a background check can persuade a few gang members to turn in their pieces and put up gun free zone signs in front of their houses and maybe settle their differences with a game of dodgeball instead….this would work in Fantasyland

When booze was illegal in this country was it hard to get? When abortions were illegal did it stop the abortions? When murder is illegal does it stop those that kill by strangulation, blunt force trauma or anyone of a hundred others ways? When drugs are illegal does that stop those that want to do drugs.

Outlawing the gun will never happen and the laws to ban them will never take place.

“A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.” George Washington

What would magazine capacity limitations, required federal registration, and the banning of popular sporting rifles do to curb gun violence?

Answer: Absolutely nothing.

What it does do is severely inconvenience law abiding gun owners who own guns for hunting, sport shooting, and the defense of their homes and families. It also makes it MUCH easier for the federal government to track who owns guns. History has proven countless times that having a large, bloated federal government that knows exactly which civilians own guns never ends well for the civilians.

This is precisely why the founding fathers made this the second amendment of the constitution and used strong wording like “shall not be infringed” because they knew from experience how important it is. In fact, the revolutionary war started when a big government man (the English general Gates) tried to disarm the civilian militia men in Boston.

Now we have a big governement guy (Englishman Piers Morgan) on TV telling us to disarm while a bunch of ultra rich former athletes and other big government guys try to explain to us how it is for our own good.

Chicago is the poster town for violence, not to mention homicide capital of the country. The CPD estimates there to be between 50,000 to 160,000 gang members in Chicago. Doesn’t take to much to figure out what the problem is there now does it. Why don’t we ban gangs and go from there, even if each gang member only commits one crime a year we would still stop 50,000 to 160,000 crimes not to mention probably half or more of the homicides. Take the gun debate out of this equation and tell me that banning gangs would help tremendously!

I’ve never heard anyone say they wanted to take guns from law abiding citizens. You don’t need assault weapons and 100 magazine clips to defend yourself and if you want to stick by bear arms without infringement then I guess it’s okay to have nuclear arms.

And lets ban murder, assault, and illegal entry. We won’t need to lock our doors any more since trespassing will be against the law, we can ban door locks to actually cause you could fill a sack with them and really harm someone. Let’s raise taxes to fund a bill to make crime illegal! Why didn’t we think of this before! And instead of defending yourself you can just carry extra copies of “the rules” and hand them out to would be evil-doers! Wait… More people are killed by baseball bats than assault rifles? Oh well football is better anyways, ban baseball! Ban the Constitution you could get a papercut!

Notice how all the gun nut girly girls flood these comments sections with goofy spewage every time there’s an article on gun control. Grab your guns girls, maybe they’ll make up for what you lack in other areas. Especially like the “bad guy with a gun stopped by a good guy with a gun.” argument. You mean like the 2 good guys with guns who were murdered by one bad guy with a gun at the shooting range? Sorry girls…right to life supercedes your sorry attempts at making a man outta yourselves. Keep on being parrots..the NRA will tell you what the dumb as all he– saying to repeat over and over for next month is.

This is a heated topic of discussion over on philly.com everyday when they report yet another senseless killing by inner city males 16-40. They don’t care and their friends and family live by the code of f the police snitches get stitches. Yet there are no community leaders showing up, no hoodie protests, no al or jessie. Until they care or are educated enough to understand it wont stop. But by all means try and take the guns from responsible owners. I live in alaska and I say good luck trying to tell these people anything about their gun rights. I have to say it is fun shooting the ar15 or mp at the range after a stressful week.

Oh, that does it. 5 guys say guns are bad. That should be all it takes to get people to volunteer to turn in their guns.

If the government would do something as simple as enforcing laws they already have, we wouldnt see near the gun violence we see today.

If the government cant enforce the current laws, how do they expect to enforce even tougher laws or even new laws?

Clean up the streets with a collective effort. The people you take guns from are in breach of law. Enforce the law.

Next, dont allow people who have mentally ill family members living with them keep guns in the house. Store them elswhere.

That right there would cut gun violence by 80%. The government will not do that though. Why not? Because any law enacted must encompass everyone in an equal fashion. So, what will happen is no change in the amount of gun violence we are seeing. Sad that we cant single out the problem and fix it anymore. It is more important to be politically correct than it is to actually fix anything.

Do you realize that you used the word need. Where in the Constitution does the 2nd Amendment use the word need? For that matter where does it use the word need in any of the Bill of Rights? Do you need a computer, land based phones, cellular phones, television, comment sections on websites, internet, etc… to speak? These are all things that the founders could not have foreseen as individuals like yourself argue when you apply that same logic to the 2nd Amendment, is it not? Should your freedom of speech be limited to written and press printed pamphlets, handwritten or press printed papers, and the verbally spoken word only because that is all you NEED for freedom of speech because that is all that the founders NEEDED? When you attack one of the Natural Rights endowed to you by the creator in our Constitution, then your attack’s logic can be used on all of the other rights. If you want to know what our founding fathers thought of the 2nd Amendment here are two quotes:
“The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” — (Thomas Jefferson)

“Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty teeth and keystone under independence … From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to insure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable . . . the very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference – they deserve a place of honor with all that is good” (George Washington)

You people are so blind to this issue, where do you think these ‘bad guys’ are getting guns. They’re stealing them from your house, because you have too many of them and they’re sitting around everywhere to be taken.

If you can’t buy and store 400 guns legally, then you wont have them sitting around for the ‘bad guys’ to take them and use them illegally.

Your “right” to own guns is an outdated joke that every other prominent, successful country is able to live without, and we’re all better off for it.

Go ahead and thumbs down because you’re red, white and blue blood is boiling right now and veins are barging through your eagle tattoos, but the fact is every other country on the planet feels sorry for the United States because you’ve been brainwashed into thinking that if you, Patrick Patriot, don’t own a bunker full of assault weapons, the bad guys will rise up and take over America.

Gun control is a massive issue that’s grown beyond ‘control’ because there are just too many firearms out there illegally, and unfortunately you will eventually have to admit that it’s not the bad guys fault, its YOUR fault, for allowing that many arms to circulate through your country. Look at the stats on gun violence and deaths associated with guns in the USA compared to the rest of the world. You will argue that it’s gang violence or the “good guys” protecting the flag by killing the bad… but most other countries aren’t armed to the teeth to protect themselves and you don’t see roadside gangs controlling our streets and towns.

Get a clue and realize you are only hurting yourself and your children by pushing for such ridiculously lax restrains on these kill-machines.

Rifles and shotguns are for hunting, a beloved past time and challenging sport.

Assault rifles, hand guns, etc are only going to destroy your once-great nation from the inside out, and it’s very sad to watch.

Lenin and Stalin Loved Gun Control and they murdered roughly 30 million people in their Gulags.
Hitler Loved Gun Control. Only people in his party were allowed to have them. Everybody else, not so much. He murdered roughly 10 million people in his concentration camps and was a direct cause for 60 million deaths.
Pol Pot Loved Gun Control and he and the Khmer Rogue caused the deaths of 2.5 million people. The Khmer Rogue killed these 2.5 million people with axes, shovels, etc…because they did not want to waste bullets. Proving that evil men don’t need guns to kill in the modern era.
Mao loved Gun Control and he and his political party murdered roughly 50 million people in 4 years.
All of these are modern day examples of governments that went evil. Do you trust that any government today could not become evil as these governments did and do the same as them?
That is why the founders created the 2nd Amendment, because from Egypt to England, governments all went evil and controlled the arms of their populations.

Somebody beat me to the Irvin scissors stabbing incident/crime during training camp. With all the stabbings everywhere perhaps only licensed professionals should have scissors.

With all the stabbings every year perhaps we should ban kitchen knives and only allow them in government approved restaurants.

Anyone that can do the math has seen the statistics of gun violence in Chicago and Washington D.C. because criminals know that law abiding citizens are unarmed (just like elementary school children). They can compare that to the low rates of violent crimes where gun ownership is high.

The hardcore gun confiscating anti-American totalitarian socialists never ever want to discuss the statistics. Their agenda is not Constitutional democracy but having power to control people.

The 2nd Amendment to the Constitution says the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. The Founding Fathers new what they were doing. They learned from experience and history. Your right to bear arms protects you from the government. The Founding Fathers knew how governments usually end up. Corrupted and tyrannical. The first thing tyrants do is take the guns from the people under the guise of safety and security. When the government is the only one with guns what will the people do when the government starts taking away your rights, your property, your health care, your freedom, your life? When the people are armed it’s a lot harder for tyranny to succeed. Keep your powder dry. It’s already happening.

Keeping people from getting guns will work as well as keeping people from getting drugs. Right, politicians? Why a certain segment of our society thinks government needs to have even more control over our lives is beyond me. Sheep.

@golfrangeman > The “its ok to have nuclear arms” comment is as tired and weak as your moms gap. That shows exactly how much though you’ve put into your position. A semi automatic rifle chambered in .223 is a personal defense weapon, as described by the law enforcement goons that carry them…to protect their persons….from urban males under 25.

I dont understand the folks who are looking to strip gun rights. I bet when society collapses all the way, things get tyrannical, or whichever comes first… they will be wishing they had the stuff they are trying to ban.

Where in the Constitution does the 2nd Amendment use the word need? For that matter where does it use the word need in any of the Bill of Rights? Do you need a computer, land based phones, cellular phones, television, comment sections on websites, internet, etc… to speak? These are all things that the founders could not have foreseen as individuals like yourself argue when you apply that same logic to the 2nd Amendment, is it not? Should your freedom of speech be limited to written and press printed pamphlets, handwritten or press printed papers, and the verbally spoken word only because that is all you NEED for freedom of speech because that is all that the founders NEEDED? When you attack one of the Natural Rights endowed to you and enumerated in our Constitution, then your attack’s logic can be used on all of the other rights. When governments start using words like we must sacrifice some our rights for safety and protection start to question. History shows that when governments start to do this that it ends in suffering.

Lenin and Stalin Loved Gun Control and they murdered roughly 30 million people in their Gulags. Hitler Loved Gun Control. Only people in his party were allowed to have them. Everybody else, not so much. He murdered roughly 10 million people in his concentration camps and was a direct cause for 60 million deaths. Pol Pot Loved Gun Control and he and the Khmer Rogue caused the deaths of 2.5 million people. The Khmer Rogue killed these 2.5 million people with axes, shovels, etc…because they did not want to waste bullets. Proving that evil men don’t need guns to kill in the modern era. Mao loved Gun Control and he and his political party murdered roughly 50 million people in 4 years. All of these are modern day examples of governments that went evil. Do you trust that any government today could not become evil as these governments did and do the same as them? That is why the founders created the 2nd Amendment, because from Egypt to England, governments all went evil and controlled the arms of their populations.

“The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” — (Thomas Jefferson) “Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty teeth and keystone under independence … From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to insure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable . . . the very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference – they deserve a place of honor with all that is good” (George Washington)

They claim to be against illegal guns, but want to ban guns that are legal now. Instead of punishing law abiding citizens, why don’t they try to get the existing laws enforced first. I’m tired of these people and corporations being used as pawns to push a liberal agenda.

RedRuffensor said: Those who oppose gun controls are in favor of more Sandy Hooks, Virginia Techs, Columbines, etc., etc..

I say to him. You do not speak for law abiding Americans, crazy people kill people one way or the other. Been happening since the beginning of time. You actually blame an inanimate object for the results of the sins of crazy people. For being a lawyer your not that smart. Does a spoon make a person fat.

Maybe you should move to China if your down with Mao’s policies. Or the U.K and you get beaten with a crowbar or stabbed since their violent crime is so high and they do not have firearms.

To all the bullet-headed, NRA dupes out there who say that many things (aside from guns) can kill but we don’t ban them:

Clearly you cannot rub 2 syllogisms together without experiencing vertigo, so allow me to explain why your argument is fallacious.

Sure, pretty much anything can be used to kill others. But, there’s a huge difference between, say, marshmallows (which could be used to asphyxiate someone, if enough were crammed down a victim’s throat and nose) and handguns. Marshmallows and most of the other things created by mankind satisfy some personal need/want THAT HAS NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH KILLING OTHERS. The only purpose of handguns is to kill (mainly) others, and they do that exceedingly well. There’s your big difference, geniuses.

So, even if a killer thought of using marshmallows to kill others, he’d abandon the idea outright because he’d know that he would be “disarmed” long before he could actually asphyxiate even his first intended victim. Killers tend to use the most efficient means possible to kill others, and that’s handguns and automatic weapons. So, thanks to you and all the other gun-nuts who promote guns for all, a killer can simply saunter into any gun shop, LEGALLY buy all the handguns and automatic weapons that his cold-blooded heart desires, blithely walk into some movie theatre, school, post office, shopping mall, etc., blast away and kill dozens of innocent people.

So let me get this straight. You are a litigator? Well I am a scientist. Statistics and logic are my best friends. I love them. Have you ever been peer reviewed? I have. Are you familiar with statistical validity of an argument? Ever heard of affirming the consequent? Here is where your logic falls apart. You stated, “Those who oppose gun controls are in favor of more Sandy Hooks, Virginia Techs, Columbines, etc., etc..” To put this in if/then terms of a logical argument you state: “If you oppose gun controls, then you are in favor of mass shootings/homicide.” The converse must be true, other wise you have committed the fallacy of the converse in your argument, and thus lose the debate because your argument is invalid and your logic is false. Adolf Hitler, Chairman Mao, Lenin, Stalin, Pol Pot, King George all supported gun control. Therefore Adolf Hitler, Chairman Mao, Lenin, Stalin, Pol Pot, King George where not in favor of mass shootings/homicides. Also your logic is false by this application. Ghandi opposed gun control. Therefore Ghandi was in favor of mass shootings/homicide. You have been found wanting. “Among the many misdeeds of British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest.” – Mohandas Gandhi, an Autobiography, page 446. Class Dismissed.

Can you please tell me what was the main weapon of genocide in Rwanda when the Hutus went on their evil and mad genocidal rampage against the Tutsis? Was it guns or machetes that were mainly responsible for the Hutus slaughter of 800,000 innocent Tutsi men, women, children and babies in 100 days. That is roughly 20% of the Rwanda’s population exterminated by the Hutus in 100 days. Do you think that the RDF went tyrannical? Here are some of the RDF’s pro gun control laws as per the Decree-Law No. 12 in 1979: Must register guns, owners, ammunition, owners must justify need, concealable guns illegal, and the government has the power to confiscate. Guess who the Hutu’s did not allow the gun ownership to. But hey, governments don’t go tyrannical and use gun control to help slaughter innocent people right? Fear, Anger, Hatred coupled with a Government that supports that Evil Hatred and uses gun control to disarm the individuals that they hate has resulted in genocide. Gun control has resulted in genocide. People don’t kill people in the modern age. Machetes, guns, axes, shovels, gas, forced labor camps, etc…do. Right?

I see that the NRA propaganda and disinformation squad is out in full force.

Nations with strict gun controls (i.e., pretty much every industrialized nation in the west, Europe, Japan, etc.) have few gun-related deaths. Nations with no/lax gun controls (e.g., the USA and many third-world nations) have a high incidence of gun-related deaths. (Thanks, NRA and other gun-nuts for keeping America in such good company!)

I have a plan. Enforce existing laws. Maybe quit giving guns to drug cartels. We may also want to make it a law that liberals/democrats can’t own guns, since they commit the VAST majority of gun violence in this country.